Pages

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

America, once the healthiest and most vibrant nation on the planet, has a disease, and I pray that it is not ultimately determined to be terminal. The people running the show today -- liberals -- seem to think that they are well on the way to curing the disease, but they are really the root cause of our ills, despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

Part of me clings to the hopeful belief that liberals truly consider their crusade to be noble, for I would mourn at the realization that theirs is a malicious quest. Why, I ask myself, would people so fortunate to live here wish to destroy the blessings we have? The other part of me sees nothing but malice in the hearts of liberals, simply because I cannot imagine such rude behavior as anything that could be construed as constructive.

Liberals today have the Midas touch, only in reverse; everything they touch that was once golden in America turns to rust, including our reputation on the world stage. For example, while our enemies' opinion of us hasn't really changed much over the years, their boldness in expressing their contempt of us has. Once there was a time when the likes of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Hugo Chavez wouldn't have dared display such mocking of America in public, yet today they do so with childlike glee, giggling and joking about something as serious as a nuclear bomb.

Iran, in particular, rattles its sabre with regularity, never seeming to worry that they will be forced to match their words with actions. Similarly, the leaders of that country blatantly express the intention to annihilate an entire people, and formerly righteous nations dismiss the words as mere blather. We have seen such cavalier dismissal before in history, and it never ended well when rhetoric became reality too late for prevention.

While our enemies are no longer afraid, our friends -- those we have remaining -- are afraid. This is a symptom that can be relatively quickly rectified with the right leader, but what of the decay of our own people? That is not as easily treatable, sad to say.

Before the complete erosion of morals had taken place in America, our soldiers returning from Viet Nam were spat upon and called "baby killers", which was then considered a right proper insult, and for good reason. Who would want to be accused of killing such innocent creatures as babies, after all? Today, the same people who loathed our military enough to hurl such vile insults themselves now fight like soldiers for the right to kill babies. Doesn't anyone see the irony in this?

We would call the language of those protesting hippies (there, I said it) hateful rhetoric. They, however, referred to it as "speaking to truth". Herein lies irony number two: while some soldiers in Viet Nam may have killed babies, it is demonstrably false to suggest that they all did. Yet when conservatives condemn radical Islam, we are accused of hate speech. By extension, then, it was ok for 1960's liberals to spit indiscriminately on even those soldiers who had fought honorably, yet now we must treat even the most dangerous of Muslims among us as fine upstanding people.

"Hateful rhetoric" has been the malignant tumor we have ignored in other facets of our society, as well. We have allowed ourselves to be cowed into accepting notions once alien to us, all out of a fear of being labelled by the left. (Funny how stigmatization only applies to honorable people these days).

"Why do you hate..." has become the opening salvo of the liberal in any argument over right and wrong, to great effectiveness. For example, when a conservative demands that our borders and sovereignty be protected from invasion, he is asked by a Democrat, "Why do you hate Latinos"? Said conservative immediately is placed on the defensive when he has no reason to be, but the reaction is reflexive. We are reminded that this nation was built by immigrants, and that is true, but there has been a shift in the intentions of immigrants in the last few decades.

Homogeneous No More

In the early 20th century, immigrants risked death to come to America in order that they might better their lives and those of their children. The object then was to immigrate here and become Americans. Today's immigrants want to come here -- in many cases illegally -- to carve out a piece of America in their home countries image, complete with language and culture.

Conservatives don't hate immigrants, they just hate the idea that America is slowly being divided into a multilingual, multicultural patchwork rather than the melting pot it was intended to be, and special rights afforded to people who are not yet citizens can be infuriating at times. Worst of all, however, is the lack of humility exhibited by people -- especially those here in violation of the law -- when demanding rights and services.

The same can be said of the gay community. Once gay people lived in fear of discovery for it would have not only been humiliating, but potentially dangerous if anyone found out. It was referred to as "living in the closet". Gradually, the idea of someone being gay was accepted and the danger was minimized, with the exception of a small segment of society that still thought it "fashionable" to assault gay people.

Most people were willing to live in harmony with this newly exposed lifestyle until a portion of the group became militant, demanding that society accept increasingly offensive displays of the lifestyle. When people complained over the in-your-face attitude of some in the gay community, they were immediately labelled homophobes and intolerant neanderthals by the left.

And finally, illustrating irony number three, we have David Silverman of American Atheists, who is upset over the existence of Tim Tebow. Claiming that Tebow is, "full of crap" for his public prayer and praise of Jesus, Silverman declares that Tebow should "pray in the closet".

That pretty much sums up the hypocrisy of the allegedly tolerant left in America. Since there is so much room in all the closets now, we can start stuffing Christians into them. Wouldn't this be considered hateful rhetoric? Not if you asked a liberal.